THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDBAD vs. ASHIF MEHBBOBELAHI RUSHNAIWALA, AHMEDABAD

Section 54F of the Act. (c) that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on account of purchase / construction of two residential house properties which is not allowable . 8. The satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings was initiated by the A.O. in the original order passed wherein he had made addition of the I.T.A No. 329/Ahd/2020

SHRI RAMESHBHAI AMTHABHAI DESAI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” Total Tax Effect 67,053”

penalty of Rs. 67,053/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” Total Tax Effect 67,053” 3. The brief facts of the case are that

TEJAS GHANSHYAMBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

54F and demanded tax thereon. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal against that assessment order which was partly allowed. It is thereafter the Assessing Officer proceeded with the penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levied minimum penalty of Rs.1,70,414/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the Penalty order, assessee filed before

RAVINDRABHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5) NOW ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Ito Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Vs. Ward-1(2)(5). Patel Now Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) 86,Kanha Residency Vadodara – 390 007 Kalali Road, Kalali Ahmedabad – 390 012 [Pan : Aigpp 8415 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Assessee Represented By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Patel vs. ITO A.Y: 2015-16 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee contended that all the conditions of sections 54B and 54F were duly complied with. It was submitted

VINODBHAI UGARDAS PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2) PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Vinodbhai Ugardas Patel Dy.Cit, Cir.2(1)(1) Nirma House Vs Ahmedabad. B/H. Petrol Pump Ashram Road Ahmedabad 38009. Pan : Aavpp 9679 F. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A), Delhi Dated 26.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Read As Under:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of IT Act.” 3. The present appeal is barred by limitation by 105 days’ delay. An application explaining reasons for delay was filed, stating that it was on account of Accountant of the assessee, who was handling the tax matters, and who in turn forgot to submit the appellate order to the assessee, that

SMT. ANJANABEN NARENDRAKUMAR PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

271(1)(c) of the act on the I.T.A No. 1372/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Anjanaben Narendrakumar Patel vs. ACIT ground that assessing officer has not mentioned the default of the assessee for which the penalty proceedings has been initiated. The fact in brief is that the assessee has filed return of income on 27th 2. October

THE ACIT,(OSD), CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI PARESHKUMAR RAMANLAL JANI,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

54F of the Act by allowing construction expenses of Rs. 54, 50, 000/- from Rs. 66, 00,000/- as claimed by the appellant. Ld. CIT (A) ought not to have held any expenses incurred by the appellant as doubtful and unsubstantiated on the basis of surmises on conjectures. It be so held now. 3. Ld. CIT (A) erred

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA vs. SHRI VINODBHAI J. PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. Learned representatives agree that whatever we decide in the case of co- owner, i.e. Shri Natwarbhai J Patel, whose appeals were also heard along these appeals, will apply, mutatis mutandis, in the case of this assessee as well. 4. Vide our order of even date

SHRI VINODBHAI J. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. Learned representatives agree that whatever we decide in the case of co- owner, i.e. Shri Natwarbhai J Patel, whose appeals were also heard along these appeals, will apply, mutatis mutandis, in the case of this assessee as well. 4. Vide our order of even date

SHRI NATWARBHAI J. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. To adjudicate on this appeal, a few material facts need to be taken note of. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has, alongwith a co-owner, sold agricultural land on 30.03.2012. The sale deed showed the sale

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), BARODA vs. SHRI NATWARBHAI J. PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. To adjudicate on this appeal, a few material facts need to be taken note of. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has, alongwith a co-owner, sold agricultural land on 30.03.2012. The sale deed showed the sale

MOHAN RAMCHANDANI,BANGLORE vs. ACIT-INTL TAX-2 AHEMDABAD, AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Mohan Ramchandani Acit-Intl Tax-2 Flat-11001 Boddaballapur Road Vs. Ahmedabad. Presting Monte Carlo Yelahanka Satelite Town So Bangalore North. Pan : Adgpr 0211 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ar Assessee By : Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

54F was disallowed, and the total income was 4 assessed at Rs.2,54,56,330/-. Penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F were separately initiated. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions and documents on record, confirmed the disallowance made

RAJESHBHAI BHAGWANDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (3) (2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13

penalty under section 271(1)(b) was initiated for non-compliance with notices under section 142(1). The total assessed income was thus computed as under: 4 Particulars Amount (Rs.) Returned income 2,19,940/- Addition under section 50C 2,04,081/- Addition on account of capital gains 10,04,081/- Total Assessed Income 14,28,102/- The assessment

VINODCHANDRA T PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 457/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

penalty proceedings u/s 27l(l)(c). The addition confirmed by the learned CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. The same be deleted now. 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not admitting the additional ground and also not considering additional ground raised during the course of Appellate Proceedings. The Additional ground raised be admitted

SMT. MAYA K. DHARWANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2094/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Maya K. Dharwani The Income Tax Officer Block No.88, B Ward बनाम/ Ward-7(2)(3) Opp. Railway Station Ahmedabad V/S. Kuber Nagar Ahmedabad - 382 340 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aefpd 1506 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

u/s 54EC of the Act, which clearly is an act of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Revenue rightly imposed the penalty for intentionally furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act relating to quantum of incorrect deduction under section 54EC

SHRI JETHANAND KHEMCHAND LUHANA,GODHRA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri T.S. Kapoor Hon’Ble

u/s 153A of the IT Act, the assessee had revised the claim to Rs.40,20,000/- as against the original claim of Rs.50 lacs thereby withdrawing the claim to the extend of Rs.9,80,000/-.” 4. He initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation-5A, and thereafter imposed penalty of Rs.2,22,068/-. Appeal

THE JT. CIT, RANGE-9, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI NIKETAN KISHORCHANDRA PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income Tax Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income. And finally made addition in the hands of the assessee. 11 . A.Y. 2011-12 3. Thereafter assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee

SH. RAJESH NARENDRABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) Baroda Bolt & Engineering Works Vadodara. Opp: Lalbaug Atitigruh Pratapnagar Vadodara Pan : Acqpp 6089 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Penalty proceedings under sections 271F and 271(1)(c) were separately initiated, and interest under sections 234A and 234B was charged. 2.9 Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated that while he accepted the working of capital gain at Rs. 62,60,142/-, he was entitled